Is there any wonder some of our young don’t want to work.

[epiphany]

Now you're back to paying them a full time living wage, where does the money come from? I'm talking about them working for the money they already get for free. The cost of them working for what they already receive wouldn’t be more expensive than it is now, but some much needed community work would get done. Employing them full time would be significantly more expensive, which is why they aren’t already employed full time.

 

There's more an issue of the numbers not adding up in your scenario. Firstly, the money they already get under the current system is a pittance, which is why all manner of additional subsidies are required to ensure they can live on said pittance. The unemployed don't just get jobseekers allowance.

 

If you want to give them adequate housing and food, i.e. enough that the equivalent would be, literally, a living wage, then why not just pay them that lump sum equivalent and cut out the middleman?

 

Replace all unemployment related benefit with a negative income tax and you not only have a more cost efficient delivery of said benefit, but you also give them incentive to earn extra income by working and they are more at liberty to choose where they spend, or even invest that money.

[MrSmith]

There's more an issue of the numbers not adding up in your scenario. Firstly, the money they already get under the current system is a pittance, which is why all manner of additional subsidies are required to ensure they can live on said pittance. The unemployed don't just get jobseekers allowance.

 

If you want to give them adequate housing and food, i.e. enough that the equivalent would be, literally, a living wage, then why not just pay them that lump sum equivalent and cut out the middleman?

 

Replace all unemployment related benefit with a negative income tax and you not only have a more cost efficient delivery of said benefit, but you also give them incentive to earn extra income by working and they are more at liberty to choose where they spend, or even invest that money.

 

How can the numbers not add up, they get some money, they do nothing for it, in my scenario they do something for it, it doesn't cost any more money. In your scenario we employ everyone and give them a good wage, where does the extra money come from.

[Balpin]

What does that have to the discussion we were just having about giving the unemployed an helping hand, by giving them some community work to do in return for food and accommodation.

 

What is that supposed to mean?

Community Work?

That work is there to be done, but you dont want to pay for it?

If work requires to be done, it should be paid and tax levied on the wage.

Then we can start generating income.

But these ideas of generating income only work when we have a government which undertands work.

 

We have at present a government of people who have never worked, never will, and who do not understand what work is.

Poverty, and even being short of a few bob, are things they are totally unable of understanding.

[epiphany]

How can the numbers not add up, they get some money, they do nothing for it, in my scenario they do something for it, it doesn't cost any more money. In your scenario we employ everyone and give them a good wage, where does the extra money come from.

 

I thought in your scenario you wanted to directly administer food and housing, rather than paying them their sum of benefits (which for most includes additional benefits on top of the pittance that is jobseekers allowance)? I'm saying the extra cost would come from the increased administration of managing such a program.

 

Aside from that, I agree with the idea of working in exchange for a basic income.

[MrSmith]

I thought in your scenario you wanted to directly administer food and housing, rather than paying them their sum of benefits (which for most includes additional benefits on top of the pittance that is jobseekers allowance)? I'm saying the extra cost would come from the increased administration of managing such a program.

 

Aside from that, I agree with the idea of working in exchange for a basic income.

 

This discussion started with my suggestion that if the council provided accommodation like army barracks and gave people the opportunity to work in return for food and accommodation, it would be cheaper than giving them money to rent a house and buy food.

 

Accommodating 40 people together and feeding them together is much cheaper than giving them individual houses and money to buy food and it works well in all our armed forces, no reason why it shouldn’t be used and work well for an army of unemployed people that need a helping hand until they find permanent work. Obviously for the young unemployed that can stay with mum and dad, they would just get their basic unemployment benefits in return for a few hours work.

[MrSmith]

What is that supposed to mean?

Community Work?

That work is there to be done, but you dont want to pay for it?

If work requires to be done, it should be paid and tax levied on the wage.

Then we can start generating income.

But these ideas of generating income only work when we have a government which undertands work.

 

We have at present a government of people who have never worked, never will, and who do not understand what work is.

Poverty, and even being short of a few bob, are things they are totally unable of understanding.

 

You still haven't explained where all the extra money will come from to employ them all in full time well paid jobs.

[Cyclone]

Is there any wonder some of our young don’t want to work.

 

Young man age 18 was unemployed and receiving £56.25 now working and receiving £81 per week, he lives with unemployed parents and they don’t pay rent or council tax, because he now works, he as to pay £35 a week rent to the council and £10 a month council tax. He is now £12 a week worse off than not working.

 

Imagine how much better off they'd all be if all 3 of them got a job...

[Cyclone]

How can the numbers not add up, they get some money, they do nothing for it, in my scenario they do something for it, it doesn't cost any more money. In your scenario we employ everyone and give them a good wage, where does the extra money come from.

 

Your scenario is rather simplistic though isn't it.

 

How do you actually check that a given person is doing the community work they should, who provides the tools to do it, who organises it and overseas it??? All these things will actually cost money, and if working on community projects how is that person supposed to be looking for a real job?

And what's to stop the council laying off the road sweeper and a few weeks later declaring that it's community work that no one is doing, and hence getting it done for free?

[Cyclone]

This discussion started with my suggestion that if the council provided accommodation like army barracks and gave people the opportunity to work in return for food and accommodation, it would be cheaper than giving them money to rent a house and buy food.

 

Accommodating 40 people together and feeding them together is much cheaper than giving them individual houses and money to buy food and it works well in all our armed forces, no reason why it shouldn’t be used and work well for an army of unemployed people that need a helping hand until they find permanent work. Obviously for the young unemployed that can stay with mum and dad, they would just get their basic unemployment benefits in return for a few hours work.

 

How does this work for a family? Do they all go and live in the workhouse?

[Balpin]

You still haven't explained where all the extra money will come from to employ them all in full time well paid jobs.

 

So you are suggesting slavery?

Along with concentration camps?

I remember something similar about 80 years ago in Germany.